Rebuttals for same sex marriage PLEASE!

[vsedriver]

The Court examined the nature of fundamental rights guaranteed to all by the Constitution, the harm done to individuals by delaying the implementation of such rights while the democratic process plays out, and the evolving understanding of discrimination and inequality that has developed greatly since Baker

but one man and one woman marriage did not discriminate against LGBT. No where on a marriage license did you have to put down whether or not you were heterosexual or homosexual. As long as it was one man and one woman they fit the same criteria and had the same rights as anyone else.

However, the right to marry WHO you wanted was never a legal right. That is evident by the fact that you had to be of legal age, not closely related, and not already married. If two men can have the same right to marry as a man and a woman then there is no legal reason to not allow other people to marry WHO they wish including close relations and those already married, AKA incestuous and polygamous marriages.

The special circumstance of being siblings or child/parent is no different than the special circumstance of being gay.

 

[jcrichton]

…not only in a much more permissive… a much more distorted environment: gender fluidity–social standards set as spiritual Truth.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Hi!

Yet, it is the rule.

I think what we need to differentiate is “right” vs. “God’s Moral Law.”

St. Paul stated that, in Jesus, he could do all things but that not everything edifies.

The Call to Holiness is not about secular rights/justification/standards.

The Call to Holiness is the Obligation to remain in Fellowship with God, which, by default, means that we must strive to the Greater Justice/Mercy/Love/Dignity/Life.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

It is the dismantling of God’s Creation (Frankenstein) to recreate life according to the creature (Satan).

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

The problem is trying to keep all the eggs in one basket.

As a Catholic I hold no power over non-Catholics or non-Believers.

Everything that I do must be according to my Faith–this of course does not mean that all who observe me or engage me will automatically become Catholics (or at least observe my conduct).

The best I can do is offer the Truth, which includes the natural order of things. However, this does not mean that all others must accept the Truth.

Tomorrow you may wake up with the conviction that you are a rock or a cornel of corn… that’s your prerogative; I can only counsel you that you are wrong; that you are a person Created in the image and likeness of God and that He has Given your Life Dignity beyond the confines and corruptions of fluid state.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

This is not all that different from my own view. I think that, in ordinary circumstances, children who need a home could be placed with a gay couple, and I would not have objections – certainly no more objections than I have when a couple otherwise engaged in some immoral activity adopts children.

But this is exactly the problem.

It is not about “the lesser evil.”

It is about what is best for the children–if you are a Christian, you cannot just look to comply with the lesser evil argument; if you are a non-Believer, you are shortchanging yourself and those children by blindly seeking to exercise a “correctness” philosophy that hinders and exploit those that you claim you want to help.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Rau]

you are shortchanging yourself and those children by blindly seeking to exercise a “correctness”

I didn’t see “correctness” prominent in his post. Was he not merely saying that 2 gay parents /guardians who would care for the child is, in his judgement, better than some alternatives?

 

[jcrichton]

What does he base that “alternative” upon, is it not the acceptance of homosexuality as an “alternative” family environment?

Have you followed the movies and programs in the past couple of decades? Have you not noticed how the homosexual “couples” are most always depicted as a loving environment while the heterosexuals are forever depicted as dysfunctional?

Not only are these homosexual “couples” the perfect loving “couples” but they are the bulwark (yeah, I went there) of society as all others turn to them for support and love and understanding.

…do you see the “correctness?”

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[2towers]

We had a few Cleaver type families in my neighborhood, thank goodness, or my childhood would have been much worse. Unfortunately, my family was not one of them. The only company I ever had were kids from other places that were children from families that worked for or were colleagues of my dad. I was welcomed at neighborhood friend’s houses, but no one wanted to ever come to my house.

None of this was ever brought to my attention by my friends or their families, they had that much grace. I never held any of this against my parents, they did the best they could. We were well provided for. Not everyone can be the Cleavers I guess. I feel grateful, like you, that I had places like that to go to.

 

[edwest211]

That is exactly right. Thank you. Dysfunctional heterosexual families and hetero men and women having sex outside of marriage are depicted as somehow normal, but they are clearly dysfunctional.

 

[Rau]

…do you see the “correctness?”

The alternative is not “heterosexual parents at large”, but certain actual circumstances that may present a particular child. It would be a mistake on your part to assume Prodigal has fallen for a “con” trick that preaches “gay parents are always great (and sweet and funny)”. He is not rating “homosexual parents” above all situations - he just observed there may be worse situations. No one contends that caring gay parents is the worst situation that could confront a child, do they?

 

[Rau]

children who need a home could be placed with a gay couple, and I would not have objections – certainly no more objections than I have when a couple otherwise engaged in some immoral activity adopts children.

The immorality in the gay couple case is a publically proclaimed kind of immorality which does distinguish it from others. This lowers the bar when judging acceptable alternatives.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

But this is exactly the problem.

It is not about “the lesser evil.”

It is about what is best for the children–if you are a Christian, you cannot just look to comply with the lesser evil argument; if you are a non-Believer, you are shortchanging yourself and those children by blindly seeking to exercise a “correctness” philosophy that hinders and exploit those that you claim you want to help.

I generally agree with the responses Rau has made on my behalf. But let me say that we are talking about social pluralism here. We live in a society where literally all kinds of people are allowed to have children: cohabitors, parents that are dating and have boyfriends/girlfriends over for the night, parents with drug problems, parents who have maturity problems, and – most importantly – single parents. When we allow all of those people to raise children, we are NOT saying that those situations are ideal. We are simply saying that we refuse to step in as a society and say “Hand over your kids”. I think it is GOOD that we do not step in, since biological parents are deeply good for children, in most circumstances. (Even just one biological parent is good).

But then your decision is this: do you want to say that we should remove children from all those homes? If so, OK, you can be consistent. But otherwise you risk being inconsistent if you say that THOSE situations are legally permissible, but gay couples should be legally barred from raising children. After all, how does one distinguish – legally – a single parent who lives with a same-sex friend from two gay parents? And why would the latter situation necessarily be worse for a child than the former?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

The immorality in the gay couple case is a publically proclaimed kind of immorality which does distinguish it from others.

I had cohabitating couples in mind, so the public part would apply to them too. But you’re right that there are plenty of cases where the immorality wouldn’t be public.

 

[theCardinalbird]

So what do we say to a gay couple who wants to adopt a child?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

What does he base that “alternative” upon, is it not the acceptance of homosexuality as an “alternative” family environment?

No more than I think shacking up is an “alternative family environment”, or I think having a string of irresponsible boyfriends is an “alternative family environment”.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

So what do we say to a gay couple who wants to adopt a child?

My answer would be that, legally, I would have no problem – so long as there was a careful vetting process, like for any other adoptive parent. However, I 100% support the right of any organization to refuse to process such adoptions, and I would probably refuse myself to be process one.

 

[edwest211]

When the State steps in and demands Catholic adoption agencies to include gay couples the result is those agencies close.

 

[edwest211]

No one allows a couple to cohabitate or to have sex. The Church and the State do not decide when anyone has sex, ONLY they do. Regardless of the circumstances, if the mother, and hopefully, the father, allows the child to be born is the issue. Private sexual activity is private regardless of it was a one-night stand followed by pregnancy, visits from a boyfriend or girlfriend, a cohabitating couple, and so on. No one except the parties involved are there and allowing them to engage in sexual activity. Society - meaning parents - did everything they could in the late 1960s and early 1970s when so-called “alternative lifestyles” were heavily marketed along with The Pill, to tell their kids: “If you love the girl, why don’t you get married?” The response was: “We got freedom, dad. We’ll live how we want.” The birth control pill was presented as a false freedom. It planted the idea that babies were to be feared, The Pill gave you “Freedom from Fear.” And self-control? That no longer mattered? Self-discipline was no longer taught? “We’re free, man. Have lotsa sex! Porn is good.” Oh yeah, that sent lives going downhill fast.

No one asks me for my permission to do anything. I don’t tell strangers they’re allowed to do anything.

Child Protective Services can and does take children away from unfit parents and situations where the child is clearly being abused. “Society,” meaning the average person, relies on these services, including the police, to handle these situations. Everything is handled on a case by case basis. No blanket statements can be made. The Catholic Church teaches that being raised by same-sex parents does harm to the child. Sure, laws can be passed but Catholic adoption agencies have closed due to State efforts.

 

[Rau]

My answer would be that, legally, I would have no problem – so long as there was a careful vetting process, like for any other adoptive parent. However, I 100% support the right of any organization to refuse to process such adoptions, and I would probably refuse myself to be process one.

It follows logically that because society holds that SSM is marriage and an equally good means of family formation, vetting of couples can place no preference on parents being mother+father vs say father+father. Now, I find that madness, but no more mad than the decisions about marriage and family formation that gave rise to it.